Narrative of facts

Related image

 

  1. Yuri and Irina Starostenko (“Messrs. Starostenko”) control Junkanoo Estates Ltd (“Junkanoo”), they are individual investors and futures traders.
  2. Junkanoo has title to a residential property at Lyford Cay in the western district of New Providence in the Commonwealth of the Bahamas called “Jazz House”.
  3. UBS (Bahamas) Ltd (“UBS”) carried on a banking and investment business at least until on or about 19 March 2015 when it entered into voluntary liquidation.
  4. In July 2012, UBS made deliberate false statements which invited or induced Messrs. Starostenko to enter an Investment Agreement in order to fund the investment business which would be carried out exclusively through trading facilities of UBS, UBS AG or UBS Financial Services Inc using UBS AG’s electronic trading platforms with instant execution of trading orders.
  5. In August 2012 UBS in a conspiracy to defraud offered a loan for a period of five (5) years to Messrs. Starostenko for the main purpose of an investment business under the Investment Agreement.
  6. On 24 August 2012, Junkanoo had been induced to enter into a mortgage agreement for a loan mainly for purposes of the investment business for the term of five (5) years.
  7. UBS provided a credit facility of USD$1,400,000 to Junkanoo on terms that at least half of the facility would be available for investments in U.S. securities, first and foremost, in futures on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange through trading facilities to be made available by UBS.
  8. The loan was secured through a mortgage on the said property, and the mortgage was a part of transactional arrangements under the said Investment Agreement and it was strictly subordinate to and incidental to the investment business.
  9. UBS carried on the trust services for Junkanoo where money on the investment account 32377 was held by the bank on trust for purposes of the investment business
  10. UBS carried out or purported to carry out sales or purchases of securities on behalf of Junkanoo from or about 12 June 2013 to 18 September 2013 pursuant to the Investment Agreement.
  11. UBS failed to perform their obligations imposed under the Investment Agreement, Statute Laws and the applicable regulations of The Bahamas and the U.S. in relation to the investment business; the bank failed to compensate in full the loss of profits suffered by Messrs. Starostenko due to UBS’ defaults in the investment business and consequently wrongfully repudiated it.
  12. On 3 October 2014, a money-lending action to recover loan secured by the mortgage was begun by UBS in the Supreme Court, and a month later, on 5 November, the Respondent applied for summary judgment. Thus, UBS, without reasonable and probable cause, instigated legal proceedings where the unsubstantiated allegations against the Appellants were motivated by malice, employing improper practices and equating persecution to intimidating and terrorizing.
  13. On 4 November 2014 Messrs. Starostenko filed a defence and a counterclaim for unliquidated damages drafted by their then Counsel for the Appellants Mr Charles Mackay.
  14. On 5 November 2014, UBS applied for summary judgment, which came before the Hon. Mr. Justice Milton Evans on 23 March 2015 who granted to UBS an order for possession in default of payment of $920,164.
  15. On 24 February 2017 a decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (“JCPC”, “Privy Council”) was announced (JCPC 2016/0052 – [2017] UKPC 8) and on 3 April 2017, the JCPC delivered its Judgment in this case.
  16. Messrs. Starostenko followed the procedures based on Their Lordships’ opinion, while the Order for possession was not enforced by agreement of UBS with the Privy Council.
  17. On 14 November 2017, in Action CLE/gen/No.01451 of 2015, Messrs. Starostenko filed with the Supreme Court a new Statement of Claim that amounted to about USD$1,920,000 plus damages or, in the alternative USD$6,000,000 explained by the extraordinary growth of financial markets.
  18. On 28 November 2017, UBS filed a defence, in which allegations of fact made in the Statement of Claim traversed in a manner that amounts to a general denial, not containing any statements of fact, what leads to a view that at the outcome of the proceedings Messrs. Starostenko may be bound to recover against the bank, which does not exist anymore, much more than it sought to recover against them by the Order for possession in default of payment of $920,164.
  19. On 21 December 2017, the Hon. Mr. Justice Milton Evans of the Supreme Court granted the Appellants leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal against the Order for possession made on 23 March 2015 but refused a stay pending appeal on the ground of hearsay evidence, which was contrary to the weight of the evidence filed with the Court.
  20. On 1 February 2018, Messrs. Starostenko filed with the Court of Appeal a Notice of Appeal and an application for a stay of the Order for possession made on 23 March 2015.
  21. On 2 February 2018, a single judge of the Court of Appeal, the Hon. Sir Michael Barnett, JA, in his judgment granted the extension of time making the Notice of Appeal competent but refused a stay.
  22. On the same day of 2 February 2018 in the afternoon, Messrs. Starostenko filed an application for leave to appeal to the Privy Council from the part of the judgment of the Hon. Sir Michael Barnett refusing a stay and gave a Notice to Mr. Jack Davis, the Deputy Provost Marshal, refusing his licence to enter the property.
  23. On 12 February 2018, the application for leave to appeal to the Privy Council have been heard by the panel of the Court of Appeal in which sat also the Hon. Sir Michael Barnett, JA. The Court acceded an oral application by Messrs. Starostenko supported by a Skeleton arguments and ordered that the Hon. Sir Michael Barnett, JA recuse himself. The Court of Appeal found that the application for leave to appeal to the Privy Council was premature and the Appellants may apply to the panel of the Court of Appeal against the Order of the Hon. Sir Michael Barnett, JA.
  24. On 15 February 2018, Messrs. Starostenko filed a Notice of Motion of applications to the panel of the Court of Appeal, including an application for a stay of the Order for possession, praying to Mrs. Sharada Ferguson, the Registrar of the Court of Appeal, for an urgent hearing.
  25. On 15 February 2018, Messrs. Starostenko were served with a Writ of possession by Mr. Jack Davis, the Deputy Provost Marshal, who made it clear that on 23 February 2018 he would expel them with their children from their house by the police force.
  26. On 27 February 2018, the execution took place in the form of an illegal distress where illegality occurred for the bailiff with forcible entry and where the police powers of entry and seizure were used unfairly, irresponsibly, without respect for Messrs. Starostenko and five minors being actually physically expulsed by force from the premises with unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation and in the violation of human rights of children under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, including physical and oral assaults against one of them who is a minor, and key principles of the Human Right Convention, right to privacy and respect for personal property.
  27. Messrs. Starostenko with their children were forced out of their dwelling house of 10 years under an order to pick only things for one night and a promise on the part of UBS to be able to come back the next day and collect necessities for living and studies of children.
  28. At the time when the eviction was taking place Mr Maurice Arthur, the Listing Officer of the Court of Appeal, informed Messrs. Starostenko at the Court building that the Court is not going to hear the Notice of Motion filed on 15 February 2018 containing an application to the panel of the Court against the order of the Hon. Sir Michael Barnett and for a stay of execution, without giving any reason for this decision, which was contrary to what was agreed at the hearing on 12 February 2018.
  29. The execution amounted in law to a wrongful and unlawful eviction by trespassers actuated by malice and orchestrated by UBS and its agents in a conspiracy and, on 1 March 2018, Messrs. Starostenko filed with the Supreme Court a Writ of Summons for trespass and conspiracy against UBS’s attorneys, security commander, bailiff, and locksmith.
  30. The Police Force of the Bahamas have so far ignored a report regarding acts of violence against children committed by bailiff and locksmith during the course of the eviction filed by Messrs. Starostenko and did not answer to the letter which they wrote to the Commissioner of Police.
  31. The promise of re-entry and access to the premises was violated by UBS or its attorneys, and Messrs. Starostenko still cannot access their house to collect their belongings and school supplies.
  32. UBS or its attorneys acting maliciously required Messrs. Starostenko to sign a Deed of Release in exchange for one access to the property.
  33. On 16 March 2018, Messrs. Starostenko sent a letter to attorneys for UBS blaming them and the liquidator for UBS that they are the true co-conspirators who entered into an agreement to defraud professional law enforcers and public authorities, to corrupt public morals and to outrage public decency, foreseeing that unjust or unfair decisions of public officials would or might result and in fact resulted in the unlawful eviction by trespassers and the said allegations have not been refuted by none person which were blamed in the said letter [792], [793-794], [795-797].
  34. After the eviction, Messrs. Starostenko applied in writing to and sought by phone calls from the Court of Appeal for an urgent hearing of their substantial appeal and/or for reconsideration of the refusal to hear their applications, including an application against the order of the Hon. Sir Michael Barnett, JA, dated 2 February 2018, but the Court remains silent.
  35. On 28 March 2018, UBS wrongfully filed a Notice for taxation of UBS’ Bill of Costs pursuant the Ruling of Sir Michael Barnett, JA, dated 2 February 2018 being aware that the said Ruling and the related Order are appealed against by Messrs. Starostenko to the Court of Appeal and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and the applications are still pending.
  36. On 4 April 2018, Messrs. Starostenko filed with both the Registrar and the Deputy Registrar of the Court of Appeal an objection against taxation of UBS’ costs.

Messrs. Starostenko draw attention of whom it may concern that UBS or its agents have not filed any evidence at all in any proceedings to oppose their allegations of perjuries, fraudulent conduct, malice against UBS or its agents by means of affidavits and statements in open court, and more particularly:

  • an affidavit of Irina Tsareva-Starostenko Affidavit about inducement, omission of qualifications and nullity filed with the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on or about 10 February 2017;
  • an affidavit of Yuri Starostenko Affidavit about misrepresentation, breaches, bad faith and pressure filed with the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on or about 24 February 2017;
  • an affidavit of Yuri Starostenko Affidavit filed with this Court on 24 April 2017;
  • an affidavit of Yuri Starostenko Second Affidavit filed with this Court on 15 May 2017;
  • an affidavit of Yuri Starostenko Sixth Affidavit filed with this Court on 27 October 2017;
  • an affidavit of Yuri Starostenko Fourth Affidavit filed with this Court on 17 November 2017.
  1. On 11 April 2018 Mrs. Cooper-Brook, the Deputy Registrar of the Court of Appeal, issued a summons to the parties to settle the record containing requirements for payment of fees for due p[prosecution of Appeal and for costs of the Respondent, to which the Appellants opposed.
  2. On 16 April 2018 UBS issued blackmail that if we will not sign their deed of release they will throw our belongings and cats out of the house and “our client will consider that you have abandoned your personal possessions and it will accept no liability for how the storage facility treats the same thereafter.”
  3. On 17 April 2018 UBS issued new threat that if we will not pay the costs awarded to them by the Court of Appeal for the hearing in 2015 and for the costs not yet even taxed, they make a new application to the Court of Appeal in order to have all the proceedings in our case be stayed!
Advertisements

2 comments

Leave a Reply to Our Story in a Nutshell – Bank Fraud in the Bahamas Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s